Couple caught in nightmare’

Friday

Apr 12, 2013 at 6:00 AM

Clive McFarlane

Rene and Ana Herrera, a hardworking Worcester couple, would appear to be the most unlikely people to be netted by aggressive debt collection agencies. The couple, both of whom work at the College of the Holy Cross, have always paid their bills on time.

Yet in February when they tried to refinance a three-decker they bought on Merrick Street in 2002, they were told Lustig, Glaser & Wilson, which prides itself as the leading debt collection firm in Massachusetts, had placed a $12,060.08 lien on their property.

On examining the execution order at the Worcester Registry of Deeds, the Herreras noticed that the real subject of the lien should have been another Rene Herrera with an address on Vernon Street. They contacted the debt company to make them aware of the mistake, but were told they had to provide the company with a slew of personal information, including Social Security numbers, date of birth, etc.

Understandably, the Herreras didn’t feel comfortable providing such sensitive information to a company that seemed, as far as they could tell, to have been a bit loose and inattentive to the details when it slapped a lien on the wrong property.

Since Lustig, Glaser & Wilson wouldn’t review the case without the information, the Herreras took the company to court where it pledged to make things right by releasing the Sheriff’s Department from pursing the lien payment on the property, and submitting a lien discharge order to the Registry of Deeds.

The company followed through on those promises, but not with the clarity and decisiveness the Herreras expected. The discharge order read in part that the “levy or seizure” made against the Merrick Street property, was “released and discharged without acknowledging payment or satisfaction of the claim…”

The bank with which Ms. Herrera was trying to refinance her mortgage wasn’t satisfied, and who could blame them?

Anyone reading that discharge order could easily interpret it to mean that the lien was discharged despite the nonpayment of a legal claim against the property. Not wanting this to become a perpetual thorn in their credit record, the Herreras are dragging the company back into court.

This time they will be asking that the company’s claim against their property be vacated; that there be no mention whatsoever that such an action was ever taken by the company on the Merrick Street property.

“It has been a nightmare,” said Ms. Herrera, who has spent time calling lawyers, filing motions and preparing documents on the case.

“We try to do the right thing. We pay our bills on time, and then someone like this comes around and turns your life into a nightmare.

“And what I am learning is that this is a growing issue. I am being told that anyone can put a lien on your property these days. If you hire a contractor to work on your home, he can place a lien on your property for wages he believes he is owed.

“If you pay attention and are willing to fight these things, you have a chance of winning. But I am afraid that there are a lot of older residents who really don’t understand what is going on, and end up being victims.”

Kenneth C. Wilson, managing attorney with Lustig, Glaser & Wilson, was a stickler for proper protocol when I spoke with him yesterday.

Under law, he told me, he couldn’t discuss the case with me, unless the Herreras released him to do so in writing.

Still, Lustig, Glaser & Wilson clearly blundered in targeting this couple, and it shouldn’t have taken a court appearance to right the wrong.

The fact that a resolution is still being sought with a second court proceeding doesn’t reflect well on the company.